The court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC, emphasizing that intent to murder was established by eyewitness accounts and corroborated medical evidence, despite the victim's hostile testimony.

JUDGMENT:

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Bishnu Singh was convicted vide judgment of conviction dated 20th December 2014 and was sentenced to R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE vide order of sentence dated 22nd December 2014; with a default stipulation to undergo S.I. for six months passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st Gumla in S.T. Case No.229 of 1991.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to challenge the aforementioned judgment and order passed in S.T. Case No.229 of 1991.

3. The Sessions Judge has recorded the following findings:

“22. After carefully going through the evidence as brought on record by the prosecution, it appears that the victim was assaulted upon during her way back from Longa Bajar on 17-04-1991 at about 7 P.M. There are two eye witnesses of this case – PW.4 and PW.6. After going through their evidence it appears that they had claimed having seen Bishhun Singh (the present accused) committing the occurrence. Though their evidences regarding the accused being the assailant was not corroborated by the injured victim but other prosecution witnesses such as PW.5, PW. 8 and PW.10 have corroborated their statement in material particulars. PW.4 and PW.6 are mother and son and the house, in the courtyard of which the victim was assaulted upon belongs to them. They are natural witnesses whose presence at the scene of occurrence is normal because it was 7 P.M.; (late in the evening and a person is presumed to be present in his house at night unless proved otherwise). Though the defence has tried to bring on record the evidence of enmity between the PW.6 and the present accused as during his cross examination PW.6 has admitted that he has earlier disposed in Court of law against the brother of the accused but the defence failed to bring on record any other thing beyond that suggestion regarding enmity with the present accused and I find no reason to disbelieve the evidences of these two eye witnesses i.e., PW.4 and PW.6.

23. If we take into consideration the totality of circumstances of this case, it was the victim and the assailant who were involved at the primary stage of this occurrence, and from there during her escape the victim incidentally went to the house of PW.6 this could only considered to be a co-incident as it was neither planned by the accused nor planned by the victim that she would go to the house of PW.6 where the presence of PW. 4 and PW.6 was normal, as discussed earlier. Furthermore, as it is established by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses that while the occurrence was being committed hue and cry was made by PW.4 and PW.6 and other prosecution witnesses PW.8 and PW.10 alongwith some others came there soon after the occurrence. It becomes apparent from perusal of their evidence also that as soon as they arrived at the scene of occurrence they saw the victim in an injured condition and they were told that Bishun Singh (present accused facing trial) has committed this occurrence. Though PW.8 and PW.10 are hearsay witnesses but their evidence is quite admissible U/S. 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, as being part of the same transaction due to proximity of time of their arrival at the scene of occurrence.

24. Another important piece of evidence is the fardbayan of the informant. He has also fully supported the case of prosecution against the present accused and by his evidence corroborated his earlier fardbayan in material particulars. His fardbayan became the basis of formal FIR (Ext.2) also well proved. The FIR contains the name of Bishun Singh as the assailant. The deposition of PW.5, the informant before this Court inspires confidence and he fully corroborated his fardbayan. The victim examined as PW. 7 has supported the case of prosecution to the extent that she was assaulted and was injured. Though her going to the house of Daleshwar Singh (PW. 6) during her escape was only a co-incident where two other eye witnesses (PW.4 an